ZENO’S ARROW

(or,
How to Argue Your Case with Jews)

We
shall win the war if and when we win the argument. This has
been my conviction since
1991, when I witnessed how the mighty nuclear superpower collapsed
because they had lost a philosophical dispute. In the battle for
Palestine the same rule may apply. Our adversary is protected by
mighty Stealth technology made out of the best sophisms but he has
his Achilles’ Heel, and Apollo may still point it out to our
archer Paris.

Recently
we published a tongue-in-cheek essay by Joh Domingo Philo-Semitic
Attacks on the Rise[i]
and received many responses. The Jewish responses were expectable
and they could be summed by one line: “You can’t say anything
valid about Jews because we all are different”. Probably you
have encountered this line. Without recognising it, the responders
actually give you the Paradox of Zeno. This Greek philosopher
‘proved’ that Paris did not kill Achilles: at every chosen
moment, Paris’s arrow was at a certain point in space, thus it
did not move and couldn’t kill.[ii] There is a branch of
mathematics called Integral Analysis that helps to deal with the
paradox and proves what we know anyway: while an arrow rests at
every chosen moment, it actually moves and kills. Likewise Jews:
while being different they are perfectly able to act in unison.

Here
is an interesting letter exchange to clarify the point:

1.
From: Lanny Cotler to Joh

I
am a Jew who is totally against the Israeli occupation.

Why
assert anything about Jews in general? Any generality you might
make would not, could not, accurately describe me. So what’s the
purpose, except to stir up emotions that do not broaden, but
narrow, people’s mind?

2.
From Joh to Lanny,

Contrary to what you suggest, we make general remarks about people all the
time, even negative ones; Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Christians
anyone. What is more, Jews make negative remarks about people in
general constantly. So what is the beef about making general
remarks about Jews? Why do you personalize it? Is this not taking
a ‘narrow’ view of things?

Far from ‘narrowing’ peoples’ minds, the non-pejorative term is
‘focus’. Focus is of course a powerful tool, and it is
understandable that it be de-legitimised in order to keep people
on the straight and narrow track. If Jews
were not so narrow-minded about anti-Semitism, we could pick the
guilty bastards off one at a time. So, in a way, talk of
‘narrow-minds’ is an insult to our intelligence.

You ask, why not call them ‘chauvinists’ instead of ‘Philo-Semites’?
Because I could not give two figs about chauvinists.
‘Chauvinists’, generally, are not planning to bomb an entire
group of people – Philo-Semites are. Nor is it ‘bigots’,
‘racists’, ‘imperialists’ and whatever other cover may be
put on it, ‘philo-Semites’ are the culprits.

3. From JTR:

I had a similar argument with this very same Lanny Cotler online somewherea
year or two ago. With him and so many others, I learned that it is
acolossal
waste of time to try and
educate him and his many
clones.

It is impossible to cure anyone of self-delusion. Cotler’s bottom line is«Anything
you say about ‘Jews» will be a generalization and therefore youare
forbidden from saying it.»

This
‘generalisation ban’ is an integral part of Jewish Stealth
technology. Without some ability to generalise, we can’t answer
even an innocent question, say, how many apples are there on the
desk? Otherwise, you will be answered: these apples are all
different, and can’t be counted. In order to count, you have to
generalise. No political discourse is possible without
generalisations. And people generalise without difficulty.

For
instance, the declaration Not In Our Name signed by a
Rothschild and Rabbi Lerner, among others, claims that “The Bush
government seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political
form of Christian Fundamentalism as government policy. It aims to
strip women of their reproductive rights, to drive gay people from
public life back into the closet etc”. Is that a generalisation?
Yes, and a rather misleading one; among Christian Fundamentalists
one can find Pastor Charles Carlson and his movement We Hold
These Truths/Strait Gate Ministries, a great enemy of the Bush
administration. Pastor Chuck supports the people of Palestine and
Iraq in their defensive war against Israel and America; he is also
against abortions. Joh Domingo correctly replied that

“
. . .the entire idea of singling out right wing Christians is
intolerant in itself. Is it extreme to want to outlaw abortion,
suppress the imposition of homosexual values and argue that there
is scientific value to spiritual experience? That is intolerance
in my mind, and a direct denunciation of any alternative
worldview; dismissal even. In short, it is a sign of a
bigoted mind.”

Well,
but so what? One can argue against this generalisation until one
is blue in the face, but I bet these guys won’t dignify your
objection with their reply. The ban on generalisation applies to
Jews only, and only to negative assessments: you can write about
wonderful Jews day and night, and no Lanny Cotler will waste your
time with his objections.

However,
Zeno-like sophism is not limited to Jews. One can find it in the
writings of Joseph Massad, a Columbia Professor and a disciple of
late Edward Said. Massad is now attacked by Zionist Jews, and we
wish him the best of luck in overcoming his adversaries. But in
his articles he exhibits the same logical fallacies one finds in
an average Jewish letter writer. He writes:

Jews,
whether in America, Europe, Israel, Russia, or Argentina, are,
like all other groups, not uniform in their political or social
opinions. There are many Israeli Jews who are critical of Israel
just as there are American Jews who criticise Israeli policy. I
have always made a distinction between Jews, Israelis, and
Zionists in my writings and my lectures. It is those who want to
claim that Jews, Israelis, and Zionists are one group (and that
they think exactly alike) who are the anti-Semites. Israel in fact
has no legal, moral, or political basis to represent world Jews
(ten million strong) who never elected it to that position and who
refuse to move to that country. Unlike the pro-Israel groups, I do
not think that Israeli actions are «Jewish» actions or that they
reflect the will of the Jewish people worldwide!

Massad
denies that “Israeli actions are ‘Jewish’ actions”. But
recently the Israeli government has confiscated thousands of acres
of non-Jewish land and houses in Jerusalem by applying the
Absentees Law. The Absentees Law makes a clear distinction between
Jew and non-Jew; a non-Jew lost his home and land even if he went
to the next village or ran away into the forest to escape
shelling. Thus villagers of En Hod lost their property though they
moved only some three km away, and villagers of Biram lost it if
they merely went to nearby Jish. On the other hand, Jewish
property has to be ‘restored’ to Jews even after fifty years
of absence and immigration, as is happening now in Iraq and Libya,
and in Eastern Europe some time ago. The confiscation is a
“Jewish” action, for Jewish Halachah rejects the very
concept of Gentile ownership. For the Jewish law, Gentile property
is free for grabs. Thus massive confiscations of 1950s and of
today are “Jewish” actions per se.

Massad
asserts that “Israel in fact has no legal, moral, or political
basis to represent world Jews who never elected it to that
position and who refuse to move to that country.” Now, this is a
strange claim for a Columbia Professor. Elections are not the only
legitimate way to become a representative or a ruler of a body.
Kings were not elected, but they duly represented their people.
There are a few Jews who would agree with Massad; but they are
rarer than the Americans who claim that President Bush does not
represent them – see the Not in Our Name initiative of
Kerry Democrats[iii].
It should be taken as a figure of speech, as an expression of
disagreement with Israeli (or Bush’s) policies rather than an
assessment of reality. In reality, support of Israel by people who
define themselves as Jews is very high (according to the US
statistics, well over 80 per cent) but even more important is the
non-Jewish acceptance of Israel as the Jewish state that
represents Jewish interests.

The
legal basis of Israeli representation is well established:
Germany, a prominent member of the family of nations, transferred
to Israel the intestate properties of Jews – German citizens who
had no connection to Israel. Israeli law allows for persecution of
every person on earth who has acted against a Jew, even if the Jew
had no connection to Israel. The Eichmann trial was an example of
such a rough justice, and Israel was not reprimanded by any
considerable body of Jews or by states.

Another
convincing proof was fashioned this week, when Auschwitz
commemoration ceremonies were accompanied by Hatikwa, the
Israeli national anthem and chaired by Israeli officials. Massad
invents a claim of his opponents, who imply, in his view, that
“all Jews, whether Israelis or non-Israelis (and the majority of
world Jews are not Israelis), are responsible for all Israeli
actions and that they all have the same opinion of Israel. But
this is utter anti-Semitic nonsense”, he writes. Now, it is not
“utter anti-Semitic nonsense”, but utter nonsense. Naturally,
there is a whole range of opinions among Jews in Israel and
outside of Israel; actually there are more Jews in Israel who
object to the government policies than there are in the US. And
again we come to Zeno: this plurality of views does not mean that
the arrow does not fly and kill.

Beyond
the denial of Massad and of many antizionist Jews, there is
another denial: that of the Jewish polity. It is supposed to be a
purely metaphysical entity, without any material signifiers. But
Massad could make a trip to Jerusalem and find there an imposing
mansion in Talbiye carrying a clear sign: The Jewish People Policy
Planning Institute (see the picture). Thus when Zeno claimed there
is no movement (for what is valid for an arrow is valid for every
‘moving’ body) Diogenes quietly walked in front of him. This
demonstration of movement was a fine refutation of Zeno’s
sophistry.

As
for responsibility, it is a moot point. Is Joseph Massad, an
American citizen, responsible for the war the US carries out in
Iraq? If the answer is ‘yes’, a Jew is equally responsible for
the actions of the Jewish polity. If the answer is ‘no’, the
very concept of individual responsibility for a
polity’s decision collapses and war
loses its legal base. If and when the Iraqi patriots extend their
defence of their land to their enemy’s territory, the accepted
theory of War will justify them, as it justifies the actions of
Palestinian fighters, for it establishes the right of belligerent
response. This right of response is based on the individual
responsibility for a polity’s decision – otherwise, the
response would be just unlawful killing.

Massad
states: “I have always made a distinction between Jews,
Israelis, and Zionists”. Good; but in the Middle East war, which
one of these three is the belligerent adversary of the
Palestinians (and Iraqis, Iranians etc)? Is it the
Israelis? But the
‘Israelis’ consist also of one
million Palestinians and of other Christians, Muslims, even Bahais.
Is it the Zionists? But there are very few Israelis who describe
themselves as ‘Zionists’ – the name of Uri Avnery is one of
the few for this freedom fighter has defended this title in an
Israeli court of law. Even the virulently anti-goy Lubawitsch
movement does not consider itself ‘Zionist’, though it demands
the expulsion of the Palestinians from the Holy Land.

This
question is far from trivial; “know thy enemy” is the first
political decision, stated the legalist Carl Schmitt. We can’t
win until we identify the adversary. For pure Hegelians, “the
spirit of Judaic supremacy” is the most suitable culprit, but if
the choice is between “Jews, Israelis, and Zionists” the
belligerent party is probably the Jewish polity, world Jewry, the
carrier of the spirit of Judaic supremacy, despite their plurality
of opinions. It is not an enemy of our choosing: it would be
easier to have just Hebron and Gaza settlers as the enemy; or some
Zionists, at least. But the Jewish polity decided to wage war, and
thus became a belligerent party.

Massad
and other friends do not dare to come to this conclusion for fear
of being labelled ‘bigots’, this second universal Jewish
defensive device. In my article Tsunami in Gaza[iv]
I compared Jewish obsession with separate (from goyim) burial, as
manifested during the tsunami, with their obsession of living
separately as manifested in the weird idea of bodily removing the
Jewish settlers from Gaza. In my view, the settlers may stay if
they wish and if they can manage to live in peace with their
neighbours. This comparison annoyed some Jews on an ad hoc mailing
list, and they attacked it as ‘bigotry’.

1.
Brian wrote:

-I
am Jewish… In this article, when Shamir writes that the attitude
he’s criticizing is «part and parcel of the Jewish faith,» I
think he’s stepping over into bigotry.

2.
Donna wrote:

Bigotry
should not be tolerated by any of us towards anyone. i am learning
from this discussion, in the past few years people have made
bigoted comments to me about jews and i am speechless.

3.
Liat wrote:

We
need to openly discuss bigotry against Jews, and you say that it
isn’t necessary. I am asking for your partnership in this
movement. And that to me means that I expect you to take anti-Jewish
oppression (sic! – ISH) seriously. Especially when four Jews
raised questions about bigotry in the posting that you sent, I
expect that you will consider us as partners in this work and
worth your while to examine how your posting might have affected
us.

Instead
of discussing the actions of Israel: that is, mass confiscation of
goyim’s land and enforced separation of Jews and non-Jews, the
peace-loving Jews on the group steered the discussion into
“anti-Jewish oppression” and “anti-Jewish bigotry”. These
four Jews in one group have
succeeded in slanting the discourse as
they often do They have terrorised and intimidated the group
moderator, and I am not sure their contribution to the struggle in
Palestine justifies the bother.

Here
is their summing up of the argument:

Israel’s
actions in the tsunami disaster are completely irrelevant to
shedding light on the occupation. But the issue of whether or not
an article that you, Alison, sent is bigoted against Jews is
absolutely relevant to our work. If we are Westerners, we have
grown up with a huge legacy of anti-Jewish oppression. It’s
important that bigotry against Jews be addressed head-on, rather
than avoided. I think that much of Shamir’s work, included the
article below, is bigoted, and I think that it’s incumbent upon
all of us to do the necessary personal work against all kinds of
bigotry, for bigotry against Jews is a bad thing, as is bigotry
against any other group.

Where
is the fault in this apparently impervious argument? Bigotry, i.e.
prejudice against an imaginary non-structured and non-belligerent
group - say, blondes, or blacks, or people called ‘Peter’ - is
not nice. It is a moral fault like hypocrisy or stinginess.
“This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt
Bee's last letter.”, - in words of our Michael Neumann. For
instance, a blonde girl from Eastern Europe has a hard time
entering Israel as she is automatically suspected of being a
prostitute. But some sort of prejudice is normal - it is a
calculation of expectation. For
instance, there are posters calling upon young persons to use
condoms while having sex with strangers. It is an expression of
prejudice - one can get venereal disease from one’s own partner
as well; but it is a
useful prejudice; as is a poster warning
you to beware of pickpockets in certain places. Would you consider
the statement: «a banker/ a lawyer will rip you off» - a bigoted
statement? If so, I am all for bigotry. The chances are, a banker
or a lawyer will rip you off given a slight chance to do so. Yes,
there are exceptions: Lenin and Robespierre were lawyers - but
they would be the first to agree with the prejudice.

Moreover,
the concept of bigotry can’t be used in relationship to
belligerent groups. It is false to call any attitude to, say, the
Communist Party, or Neo-Cons -
“bigotry”. At war, structured groups fight; for instance,
Catholics fight Protestants in Northern Ireland; in Palestine,
Jews fight non-Jews; in the World War Two, Russians and Americans
fought Germans and Italians; in Iraq, Americans fight Arabs.
Israeli soldiers are under order shoot to kill every armed Arab,
every suspicious non-Jew, as it happened in case of the English
peace activist Tom Hurndall. Bigotry is not coming into it at all:
this is war.

As
for Jews - they are a structured belligerent group presently at
war. For the American Jews - a structured sub-group - there is a
colonial war they carry out (not just support) in Palestine. They
are as hostile to pro-Palestinian forces as the Americans are to
the Arabs in the Iraqi war. It does not mean that every American
(or Jew) is an enemy; moreover, there are many good Americans (or
Jews) who are against the Iraqi (or Palestinian) war. Let these
Jews (or Americans) be proud that they crossed the lines, for this
is a great individual achievement. However, their presence on our
side does not cancel the war. Likewise, there were good and brave
Americans who hailed to Hanoi during the Vietnam War, but the war
continued unabated.

This
understanding of the Jews as a belligerent party fully conforms to
the declaration of war on Germany by Hayim Weitzman on behalf of
the Jewish People. This does not mean that we approve of total
war. There are unacceptable things in war as well. We do not wish
to revive the bloodthirsty diatribes of Iliya Ehrenburg who called
on the Russian soldiers to kill ‘females and unborn whelps of
the accursed [German] race’. This war is not forever, it does
not have to be total, but it is a war; and à
la guerre comme à
la guerre. Where there is war there
is no bigotry, but normal warfare; the prejudice is called
‘presumption’ and is considered to be acceptable behaviour.

Another
peace-loving Jew, Alan Levin, argued against it:

What
you say in your message is that «we» (and here I think you mean
all those seeking the liberation of the Palestinian people) are «at
war with the Jews», in much the same way as America was at war
with Germany. Your argument follows a pseudo-logical path,
describing the somewhat innocuous bigotry towards blonds and
lawyers, preparing the way for bigotry against Jews (as the
nation, not of course the individual Jews) with whom «we» are at
war. And since we are at war, this is not bigotry.

Even
if you believe this kind of sophistry, you may at least concern
yourself with the practical consequences of such an argument. A
growing number of Jews are shifting their understanding about
Israel and moving towards support of ending the occupation and
even a growing number are understanding the inherent problem of a
«Jewish state». Do you think your rhetoric will help with this
movement? Likewise, there is a growing understanding within the
Palestinian and Arab world of the distinction of Jews and Israel
and opening to alliances with Jews and Jewish groups. Do you think
your war rhetoric will help with that?

It
sounds reasonable and wise, but on second thought we find yet
another instance of sophistry. Indeed, Levin’s argument is
applicable to every war. Many, probably a majority of Palestinians
are not connected with the Resistance and prefer to live in peace
even under the sub-human conditions imposed by the Jewish state.
However, the Jewish state does not apply Levin’s argument to
itself but carries out a merciless war against civilians. Many,
probably a majority of Iraqis prefer peace to the American
attacks, but the US troops keep attacking them. Levin says “A
growing number of Jews are shifting their understanding about
Israel”. Very good, but it does not end the war. “Shifting of
understanding” is not enough.

Millions
of Germans did not just ‘shift their understanding’ but voted
against Hitler in the last free elections. Still, it did not stop
the American and British Air Force from bombing millions of
perfectly innocent Germans - women, children, anti-Nazis. The
Americans bombed Belgrade and Baghdad - did they care who is for
and who is against Saddam or Milosevic? Millions of Americans
demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, but in the same time Mi
Lay village was razed.

This
is the logic of war. A Jewish child in New York or Montreal or Tel
Aviv is innocent - but he is not more innocent than a German child
in Dresden, or a Palestinian child in Khan Yunes. War includes the
killing of innocents. That is why war is bad. But in the war
forced upon us, it makes no sense to demand two different
approaches to Jews and to non-Jews because of the dubious concept
of ‘bigotry’.

Turning
to Jews active on our side, I would like to quote Zev Chafets, an
American Jew, who wrote in an American Zionist paper The New
York Daily News:

“Edward
Said didn’t blow up Marines in Lebanon in 1983, ignite the
Palestinian intifadeh
or send Wahhabi
missionaries to preach violence against infidels. He certainly
didn’t fly a plane into the World Trade Center. What he did do
was jam America’s intellectual radar’.

Some
Jews (and not only Jews) do exactly that - by raising the spectre
of prejudice (bigotry) they try to jam our intellectual radar.
They have indeed succeeded in jamming the radar of Joseph Massad;
he has even published a review of a book by Norton Mezvinsky and
the late Israel Shahak, accusing them of bigotry and antisemitism:

“For
the authors, as for the anti-Semites, it is Judaism, not Zionism
and a Zionised Judaism, that is the culprit. Baruch Goldstein, who
massacred Palestinians in al-Haram al-Ibrahimi on Purim, is not
seen in the context of a racist and colonialist Zionism and its
myriad massacres against Palestinians, but rather as part of a
tradition of Jewish murders of non-Jews. The authors’ commitment
to Zionism’s assimilationist project of transforming Jews
culturally into European gentiles while still calling them Jews is
everywhere in evidence. While the authors have a long history of
opposition to colonial Zionism, they are in agreement with an
assimilationist Zionism which borrowed from the Haskala its
assimilationist impulse.”

There
is some poetic justice that Massad, who accused Shahak of
antisemitism, is now the accused of the same offence: like
Zinoviev who accused Trotsky of betrayal until he found himself
accused of treachery. I agree with Shahak, even though Massad
lists him among ‘bigoted antisemites’: the crimes against
non-Jews in Palestine have a quasi-religious context, like the
Night of St Bartholomew did. Massad is mistaken assuming that
assimilation drive is limited to Zionists – Soviet Communists
and Christians were as assimilationist as Zionists. De-judaisation
of Israel is a desired stage on the way to establish one
democratic state – the wish of Edward Said. It would represent
victory over the main belligerent party, Jewry, for a de-judaised
Israel will become Palestine even if not a single Israeli were
hurt or forced to emigrate. Chad Powers stated correctly:

“If
rank-and-file Jewry (let alone the Gentile world) were ever
allowed to freely face the factual hypocrisies, paradoxes, and
outrages of Jewish identity and history, the community would
probably self-destruct with an exodus of shame and
disillusionment. Robbed of their incessantly propagandistic «victim
hero» status, many «born Jews» would inevitably migrate out of
the Jewish Fortress Against Other People, seeking new identity
allegiances[v]”
– Palestinian in Palestine and American in the US.

Our
friend, supporter of Palestinian cause and a prolific Internet
writer George Pumphrey, was also taken in by Zeno. For instance,
Manfred Stricker, following Hanna Arendt, referred to the
‘Jewish usurers of Alsace’. Pumphrey immediately slapped his
hand:

To
speak of «the Jews of Alsace» is a gross generalization, when
merely addressing the situation of the Alsatian usurers, but not
the rest of the Jewish population of Alsace. Nor was one claiming
that all Alsatian Jews were rich or usurers. But the way it is
used here could (mis)lead to this impression[vi].

Thanks
to Zionists, no other people on the planet are as generalized -
both positively and negatively - as Jews. Jews are never allowed
to be people, with positive attributes and faults.

This
is obvious nonsense. Every group is ‘generalised’ – not
least of
all the Germans (Pumphrey lives in
Germany), but equally the
Russians, the
Arabs, the
French. Probably the people of
Liechtenstein are not generalised for not many are aware of their
existence; otherwise, ‘to be a people’ means to be generalised.
Pumphrey is not above having a go at generalisation about Jews,
but a positive one:

Jews,
who, in their majority, are universalistic, do not accept the
chauvinist «ethnic purity» concept for their «homeland».

In
my experience, every word in this generalisation is false. The
Jews are ‘universalistic’ if it is good for Jews; and
perfectly particularistic otherwise. But this is peanuts compared
with the next claim of our friend:

Anti-Semitism
is a chauvinism. It does not begin with hostility toward Semites,
but with a feeling of superiority over Semites (and eventually
anyone else). The choice of the object of the chauvinism is a
tactical rather than a strategic question. A chauvinist feels
superior to various groups of people, but lives out his chauvinism
along lines of momentary/tactical priority.

It
is a factual error: there are hardly any antisemites who feel superior
to Jews (let us skip this ‘semite’
stuff). Negative feelings towards one’s enemies – and we
presented (above) the case that the Jews are a belligerent party
– are normal; they can’t be described as ‘bigotry’ or
‘chauvinism’. For instance, during the Franco-German war of
1870, the French hated the Germans and the Germans hated the
French. They were not “bigots,” as at war this concept is not
applicable. They needed this hatred as a psychological defence in
time of war: it is difficult to kill without hate. After the war
was over, relations soon normalised and now they are quite
fraternal. Equally, if and when the Jews cease to be a belligerent
party, they will not be hated.

The
errors of George Pumphrey, a good thinker and activist, are based
on his obsession with ‘bigotry’ and ‘chauvinism’. He
writes:

In
the aftermath of the Second World War the dominating standard of
civil behaviour was to abhor any ideology based on chauvinism,
because ANY ideology based on chauvinism as being a precursor to a
development that could lead toward ethnic cleansing (whether
through territorial expulsion or through genocide).

I
tend to doubt every dominating standard, for if it were good for
us, it wouldn’t be dominating. The biggest ethnic cleansing(s)
were carried out after WWII by its victors, without any
chauvinist ideology: I mean the
deportations of ethnic-Germans
out of Poland, the Czech Republic, and
Prussia. Anti-chauvinism dominates the
discourse for it provides a philosophical weapon to deal with
native resistance to foreign takeover. Thus Russian opposition to
the Western takeover is usually described as ‘chauvinist’ or
‘Red-Brown’. Anti-chauvinism dominates the West-imposed
liberal discourse for it allows Transnational companies to
operate; to import cheap labour, and to sanctify the Jews as the
traditional enemies of chauvinism.

But
nowadays, only “our side” is afraid of “bigotry”. Daniel
Pipes, a favourite pundit of Bush and a fervent Jewish
nationalist, made it clear that the Jews are not afraid of this
accusation at all:

“For
years, it has been [Pipes’] position that the threat of radical
Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims.
If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population.
Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of radical
Islam), one looks at the Muslim population. But Leftist and
Islamist organizations have so successfully influenced public
opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on
Muslims. The intrepid [Jewish] columnist Michele Malkin’s
recently published book, bearing the provocative title In
Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War
II and the War on Terror. She correctly concludes that,
especially in time of war, governments should take into account
nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their
homeland security policies and engage in what she calls «threat
profiling».

Pipes
and Malkin, the cutting edge of organised American Jewry, call for
the internment of Muslims in detention camps and the stripping of
their constitutional rights. Guantanamo is a first swallow of
their success. They are not afraid to use the weapon of prejudice
against the non-belligerent Muslim community because they rely
upon our friends Massad, Pumphrey et al to block any similar move
against them.

This
problem is much in evidence all around the world. In Sweden, the
activists for Palestine are led by a young man of Palestinian
origin but Swedish upbringing, Ammar Makboul. This Makboul hates
‘bigotry’ so much that he has
forbidden any reference to ‘Jewish
settlers’ in Gaza, for reasons similar to those stated by
Pumphrey concerning Jewish usurers in Alsace. In his view, they
should be described as ‘settlers’, without ‘bigoted and
antisemitic reference to their Jewishness’.

The
opponent has no such misgivings. Alan Dershowitz calls for the
torture of
Palestinians and the erasure of their
villages; and he is still a professor of law at Harvard. Another
American Jewish professor, Linda Allen of Baruch College, CUNY,
New York, calls[vii]
for the transfer of Palestinians to Sinai. This situation is
unacceptable. The chivalry of our friends reminds me of the
foolhardy Polish cavalry in 1939 –
they actually tried to stop Heinz Guderian’s tanks on horseback,
as they felt tanks were
not honourable enough for their noble souls. As we know, Poland
capitulated within one month.

The
friends of Palestine have no problem
with individual Jews – they could be good or bad, our supporters
or our antagonists. But the
friends of Palestine have a problem with
‘Jewry’ – the organised structure of Jewish communities. A
few weeks ago, Haaretz published a huge page-long ad signed
by all prominent Rabbis of the land – three hundred of them –
calling for “Vengeance to the Evil Folk” [Palestinians] and
enforcing religious obligation “never to surrender a single inch
of the sacred land to them”. It is a call to holy war.

A
call for war usually is met by war. When the Germans declared war
on France (in 1939) or on Russia (1941) all Germans suffered the
consequences, though the decision was taken
by a few persons in Berlin. Now the vast majority of organised
Jewish communities carry out their war on Palestine, but our
friends (ostrich-like) try to see no evil.

The
position of individual Jews is much better than that of any other
national collective. Individual Jews can opt out of the conflict
by opting out of organised Jewry. Nobody has to be a Jew – every
person calling himself ‘Jew’ has another identity as well. He
is an American, or an Israeli, or a Frenchman. Thus, the
friends of Palestine have to confront
– not people of Jewish origin, but Jewry consisting of people
who choose their ‘Jewishness’ as the most important
identifier.

Conclusion:

In
the present war, Jewry is a belligerent party; this polity decided
to wage war on too many enemies at once. Individuals of Jewish
origin could be good or bad; but the organisation is hostile to
us. The victory over it is possible, but we have to pierce its
Stealth shield manufactured by many
skilled hands in many arguments.

Your
tackling of the problem of generalisations, positive and
negative, and how a 'law' (the generalisation ban) has
been created to militate against any criticism of World
Jewry's projects, is a most valuable service. This is a
great help in clothing an invisible weapon often made
use of in this war you speak of. The problem for most of us is
that until a problem is verbalised and clearly enunciated for
us we fail to see it, to realise its very existence. We
wander around aware that something is amiss but incapable of
putting a finger on it, so to speak..

From
Ken Freeland, Texas

A
great article -- you're still on the cutting edge! But there
is the problem of being ahead of the curve, Adam. The
majority of people are just not interested in this problem
(yet), or in the analysis that you offer, even though it's
correct. "Stealth" technology works at least as well
as you say it does, and you know who dominates the media, from
whence majority opinion derives.

From
John Spritzler:

Dear
Israel,

I
enjoyed reading your Zeno's Arrow very much. You make
the point that the concept of bigotry doesn't apply in the
context of a war. OK. This is true in the reality of
war as it has been fashioned by elites historically, elites
who bomb civilians no matter which side they actually support
(like the people in Dresden and Hiroshima.) I think what needs
the most emphasis, however, is that we need to overthrow the
elites and their conceptual framework for waging war. We need
to nurture and promote the opposite framework of international
working class solidarity, as manifested (implicitly at least)
by the great Christmas
Truce in
WWI. On that famous Christmas, the German and British
soldiers rejected something (ideologically) very much in need
of rejection: call it bigotry or nationalism or something
else, but whatever it was they rejected we need to promote
more rejection of it today. Your call for Jews to assimilate
and reject their indentification with and loyalty to "the
Jews" is in keeping with this necessary rejection; it is
what I think deserves the most emphasis.

From L'Omnivore
Subriquet:

Just a short comment on the paradox of Zeno precisely, as it may illustrate how to deal with so-called (anti-Jewish) generalizations.

The rushing arrow can at every instant be considered as 'still', never extending beyond its particular space, so is at rest all the time, and therefore, that killing momentum doesn't exist...

A good example of how individual jewishness, diverse and personally 'fulfilled' and 'contained', shouldn't lead to that Zenonian mistake of not recognizing the actual jewish body, or jewish polity, or Jewry, or judaïc general interest, taste, strategy, and the actual momentum it performs. And flying arrows do exist and are dangerous, and should be sheltered from, and fought against once identified. Otherwise it leads to non-top carnage... Azincourt made that lesson clear enough.
(a historical french defeat in the low Middle-Age times, well-known precisely for that matter... and its lasting consequences: the complete elite of the burgeoing French nation got wiped-out in a day, in a never to be seen again proportion)

Mr Shamir points at the clue when writing about integration : those mathematical integrals that many of us had to painstakingly build during our
sixteens.

Well it's a widely known intellectual tool (thanx Newton & Riemann), fitting the issue nicely. And I'd like to carry a bit on this comparison. ("Comparaison n'est pas raison", but still can give clues)

The key to go from a 'still' arrow to the fatal concept, the path along a trajectory, is its infinitesimal variation of position; you know, those dx and dt 's. They must accompany all the instantly 'still' arrows. There is no integral without them. Important !

Similarly, one has to consider the tiny moves in every soul toward judaïsm to appreciate the whole judaïc reality, and action. The jewish people, diverse, independant and 'non-assimilable' (a double standard expression), and 'not defineable' have ALL a little momentum or vibration, 'attitude' as meant in the fashionable 'dynamic' sense, towards Judaïty, toward jewish interests. Towards 'Israel'. Hence we see the resulting Jewish Polity, summing the independant positions and personnal 'feelings'.
One's personnal question about judaïsm is a necessary part of its reality. We see discourse lurking.

In multi-dimentional maths, one computes the little elements along a 'direction of integration', whatever the number of dimensions of that 'direction': there only has to be one LESS than the surroundong space (for the arrow, it's the vertical plane). The way to the synagogue then, the attitude towards Israel, the local dominance of discourse, the 'weight' of gentile following... under 'direction' yes.
It takes continuity to allow for integration; the little elements have to stay close to each others, smoothly varying along the chosen direction, the issue. Whatever the variation. No rupture ! (no breach) An arrow that would 'jump' from one position instantly to a distant, unconnected one, a 'star treck' arrow then, wouldn't make that so useful 'progression'. I'll leave the conclusion about Jewry for yourself...

From Mel Fowler:

Mr. Shamir,

I don't need "Integral Analysis" to know that Jews are able to act in unison, nor do I need it to understand that "Zeno's Arrow," like all paradoxes, is mere word play, relying as it does on words representing staticity and carefully avoiding words of motion. One sees the absurdity of Zeno's Arrow in this statement: You can't step into the river in the same place twice. Like the concept of the river, the flying arrow is a concept of motion, not staticity . So much for word play.

Of much greater relevance to our present circumstances is the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently, you believe it collapsed because, as you say, it lost a philosophical dispute. Like Zeno's Arrow, that, too, is an absurdity, although a rather dangerous absurdity bcause it tends to divert attention away from what actually happened. A reasonable investigation into what actually happened to the Soviet Union would start with the recognition that great sovereign states don't just suddenly collapse. If the Soviet Union didn't merely change its name, but actually ceased to exist, and is now replaced by another entirely different state, that is because it was programmed that way. Rather like throwing away a pair of shoes that is worn out and no longer serviceable.

No doubt, a complete explanation of all the reasons behind the disappearance of the Soviet Union would take a while to elucidate, even for someone who already knows what they were. But it doesn't take an intellectual giant to see some of them right off the bat, as they say. Briefly, here is the way I see it:

The political Jews who forced a communist revolution on Russia, created the Soviet Union for their own purposes, not for the purposes of the Slavic state of Russia. Russians did not welcome the communist dictatorship and could be kept submissive only by the continuous application of intense terror by the Soviet police State. This was not the image the Bolshevik Jews wanted to present to the world. It was a huge embarrassment to those in political control, an albatross hanging from their necks. It must gradually have become clear to the Jewish controllers that the Soviet Union, as it had come to be perceived by the rest of the world, could not serve successfully as the platform by which the Jewish internationalists' could launch themselves into the position of masters of the globe.

One can see broadly how the Soviet Union, under the control of Jewish internationalists, served Jewish interests during the era of WWI and WWII. However, in respect to Jewish internationalist interests as they reshaped themselves during the cold war, the Soviet Union became less an asset and more a liability. Jewish internationalists perceived that they must fashion a new image for themselves as those at the helm leading the world toward a "new world order." They must separate themselves from the unspeakably hideous slaughter of the revolution as well as from the failures of Soviet communism, which had become an odious nightmare for the whole world. In short, the commissars must separate themselves from the Soviet Union, put on business suits, move to the United States (the next great Jewish rip-off), become lovers of freedom, democracy, and electoral politics, and prepare for some new wars. What better way to do that than to allow the Soviet Union to "collapse," steal its assets and leave on the next plane. There were some very big plans for the future they must get started on.

The Jewish tribe has been doing this sort of thing for a very long time. They are good at it. Their principal victims, the white people of the world, never seem to catch on until things are way out of hand and a lot of damage has been done. Yet, in the past, it has always turned out to be a debacle for the Jews. At the least, they are forced to leave. Jews don't like that. They call it genocide. I fear this time it will be a debacle for all of us.

Mel Fowler

Shamir responds: if your response would be written in 1947, one could understand it. This was a standard view of Duglas Reed and many other right-wingers who considered Communism - "a Jewish plot". But in the USSR of 1950s - 1990s, there were practically no Jews at the top. Although many Jews supported the 1991 events, and many benefitted from the change, they had no real power neither access to power for long 40 years. Look at the last Central Committee or Politburo or government - they were (practically) all Russians. Even the media had no high-ranking Jews. As opposed to the US, the Jews had no positions of importance in the KGB, TV, State, Party. The USSR suffered massive betrayal by its elites, and these elites weren't ethnic Jews. There were no "commissars in business suits who moved to the United States" - though there were many Jewish emigres, but they were rather low status people. So your version - and the version of Reed - does not conform to reality. As for "Soviet communism... an odious nightmare for the whole world" - this is another error. Actually majority of Eastern bloc people - Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Hungarians, Tajiks etc - would love to get back to this odious nightmare, for the Hollywood-made sweet dream is much, much worse. It was a good society (read my Our Happy Days http://www.israelshamir.net/shamirImages/Shamir/bygone.htm ) and its demise is still much regretted to the East of Oder.